Henderson v. Quest Expeditions
174 S.W.3d 730 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An exculpatory clause in a contract for recreational activities that expressly releases a party from liability for its own negligence is enforceable and does not violate public policy, as such activities are not essential public services.
Facts:
- Nathan Henderson decided to participate in a white-water rafting expedition operated by the defendant.
- Prior to the excursion, the defendant required Henderson, who had no previous rafting experience, to sign a pre-printed 'Waiver and Release of Liability' document.
- No employee of the defendant reviewed the document with Henderson or explained its contents to him before he signed it.
- After Henderson completed the rafting portion of the trip, he and other participants were transported on one of the defendant's buses.
- Passengers were instructed to move from the first bus to a second bus.
- While Henderson was disembarking from the first bus, he slipped, fell, and sustained severe personal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Nathan and Brandy Henderson filed a lawsuit for personal injuries against the defendant in the trial court, alleging negligence.
- The defendant, in its Answer, asserted the signed 'Waiver and Release of Liability' as an affirmative defense.
- The defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing the waiver barred the plaintiffs' claim.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, ruling that the waiver was valid and did not violate public policy.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a pre-injury waiver and release of liability, required as a condition for participation in a commercial white-water rafting expedition, violate public policy and is it therefore unenforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - Herschel Pickens Franks, P.J.
No, the pre-injury waiver does not violate public policy and is enforceable. Tennessee public policy favors the freedom to contract, which includes the right for parties to agree that one shall not be liable for its own negligence. An exception exists for contracts affecting the public interest, but participation in a voluntary recreational sport like white-water rafting does not implicate the public interest. The court applied the six-factor test from Olson v. Molzen and determined that rafting is not a service of great public importance or a practical necessity, distinguishing it from professional services like medicine or home inspection. Furthermore, the waiver's language was clear and unambiguous, expressly releasing the defendant from its own negligence and specifically mentioning transportation by bus. Therefore, the contract is enforceable as written, barring the plaintiffs' claims.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the validity of liability waivers for recreational activities in Tennessee, drawing a sharp distinction between voluntary, non-essential pursuits and professional services that implicate the public interest. By narrowly interpreting the public policy exception established in Olson, the court provides significant legal protection to operators of recreational businesses. The ruling signals that as long as a waiver is clearly drafted and explicitly releases the operator from its own negligence, it will likely be upheld, placing the burden of risk squarely on the participant. This precedent makes it more difficult for injured parties to succeed in negligence claims against recreational service providers when a waiver has been signed.
